For the love of Pictorialism

From: steve ^lt;>
Date: 02/08/04-05:26:00 AM Z
Message-id: <>

>>> BTW, I would ve very interested in following a
>>> "Pictorialism" discussion (to be enlightened on
>>> the subject) here...

(Hi! -newby in the house)


Hope you don't mind me saying so, but your writing style matches the
subject thread as I'm understanding it. I would love to see one of
your pictures from the new handmade camera that you mentioned. Will
you share your camera plans? I recently purchased "Primitive
Photography" and the chemicals for paper negatives, as the book
suggests, but your concept of a "paper negative roll camera" is
intriguing! Are you using commercial paper? I'm also interested in
how you constructed your lenses or if you are using a modern set?

As an aside, I've been studying photos that are classified on the web
as pictorialist and trying to find some common threads besides the time
frame they were made. I haven't read Shannon's paper yet, but I will
shortly. Would "resembling a painting" satisfy the requirements for
pictorialism? Subject matter seems to range from pastoral scenes like
the one that you described to common field workers engaged in labor.
Would the likes of Thomas Cole's paintings fall into this category?
I'd rather think that Ansel Adams might even qualify in that case! I
think I read on this site that the photograph must be unique and unable
to be replicated by the same process that it was formed from in order
to be pictorialist. I wonder if there is a "working definition" that
would qualify?

s.t. cole
Received on Sun Feb 8 14:47:17 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 03/02/04-11:35:08 AM Z CST